chipster blog

I thought our story was epic, you know. You and me. Spanning years and continents. Lives ruined, blood shed. Epic. No one writes songs about the ones that come easily.

(as requested by anon)

you have that power too.

i know. somehow i’ve always known.

When I passed out after day drinking but then rally for the night out

Ever since I did my post about how Thomas Jefferson would go to hell, people have been like “can you do Andrew Jackson too” to which my answer is a resounding HELL NOPE. That dude will LITERALLY MURDER ME and the fact that he’s dead WILL NOT DO A THING TO STOP HIM BECAUSE HELL CANNOT HOLD HIM. Like, most U.S. Presidents are murderers by proxy, but this dude was a LITERAL SERIAL KILLER WHO LIKED TO GET HIS HANDS DIRTY. He is responsible for the only time in American History that the president’s bodyguards had to save the ASSASSIN’S LIFE from the PRESIDENT. You know how we called Nixon “Tricky Dick” because he was a liar and we called George W. Bush “Dubya” after his middle initial and we called Abraham Lincoln “Honest Abe” because he was a pretty above-the-board type of guy? They called Andrew Jackson “Old Hickory” because he liked to BEAT PEOPLE ABOUT THE FACE AND BODY WITH HIS CANE. Like he was absolutely a genocidal maniac who apparently only held the office of President because everyone was too afraid to ask him to leave but now that I’ve said that, I want you all to know that if I’m found beaten to death with a blunt object, I can save the police the trouble of investigating: It was former U.S. President Andrew Jackson come back from the dead for revenge. 

When you are in the middle of a story it isn’t a story at all, but only a confusion; a dark roaring, a blindness, a wreckage of shattered glass and splintered wood; like a house in a whirlwind, or else a boat crushed by the icebergs or swept over the rapids, and all aboard powerless to stop it. It’s only afterwards that it becomes anything like a story at all.

Margaret Atwood, Alias Grace (via bb8s)

Selina Meyer’s take on men.

game of thrones // parallels // cersei + burning things down

By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!

Study shows Millennial Men do not think of women as their equals

A majority of millennial men failed to see women as equals, according to the study, which looked at how college biology students viewed their classmates’ intelligence and achievements, the Harvard Business Review reported.

Among the findings:

In every biology class surveyed, a man was seen as the most celebrated student, even in instances where women earned significantly better grades.

Men were also found to overestimate the intelligence of their male classmates over that of female ones.

Men continued exaggerating their assessments of the male peers, despite unequivocal evidence that their female peers were performing better.

Women, conversely, weren’t found to display a bias: Their assessments of fellow classmates tended to be spot-on.

The National Institutes of Health researchers pointed out that female STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) majors drop out at significantly higher rates than their male counterparts.

“The reasons for this difference are complex, and one possible contributing factor is the social environment women experience in the classroom,” they wrote.

Still, scores of men are under the impression that they’ve become the target of reverse sexism. Conservative columnist John Hawkins ranted in Town Hall last year:

“Men have it rougher in America than most people realize. In part, that’s because they’re one of the few groups (along with white people, conservatives, and Christians) it’s cool to crap on at every opportunity. In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a nonstop assault on masculinity in America.”

But research has confirmed the reality of gender bias against women. A staggering 90 percent of women reported experiencing gender harassment in the workplace, a 2010 University of Michigan study found. The results suggest that such harassment had the purpose of driving women out of jobs and not the generally assumed motivation of trying to draw women into relationships.

“One could argue that, in these instances, ‘sexual harassment is used both to police and discipline the gender outlaw: the woman who dares to do a man’s job is made to pay,’” the researchers wrote, quoting an article by Katherine M. Franke, an associate professor of law at the University of Arizona College of Law.

As for millennial men specifically, they have been less accepting of female leaders than their older male counterparts, according to a 2014 survey of more than 2,000 adults residing in the United States, the Harvard Business Review reports.

Half of Millenial men said their careers would take priority over their partners’. 

Three-fourths of women, on the other hand, said their careers would be at least as important as their husbands’.

Michael: Let’s burn this son of a bitch. It’s going to be our best summer ever, buddy.

Top Banana - 1x02

Rejecting Texas’s latest effort to do away with abortion rights, the Supreme Court served the antiabortion movement some very bad news Monday. The justices didn’t believe Texas was just trying to help its poor, hapless women out. Instead, according to Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s majority opinion: “In the face of no threat to women’s health, Texas seeks to force women to travel long distances to get abortions in crammed-to-capacity superfacilities.” From now on, the court warned, it would no longer, as the White Queen said in “Through the Looking Glass,” believe “as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Not even about abortion. Not even, the Court emphasized, when the impossible suggestions, like looking after women’s health, come from the legislative branch. You want to help women out, Breyer wrote? You gotta prove it to us. The Court’s opinion seems to be the death knell for two decades of antiabortion activism, which has cloaked itself in unsupported assertions that women need to be protected against abortion rights. The strategy of purporting to help women, which has, until today, been stunningly successful, started with the attack on so-called “partial birth abortion” in 1995. It reached its high water mark with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s hotly contested 5-to-4 decision upholding the restrictions on such procedures in Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007. Kennedy found medical disagreement about the safety advantages of the procedure. Importantly, he then deferred to the findings of the legislature that women would be safer and better off without partial birth abortion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg devoted her dissent in Gonzales to eviscerating his decision to defer, with special emphasis on the way that Congress got to its findings about the safety of partial birth abortion and the findings themselves. The link between helping women and restricting their access to abortion, never very convincing, grew more and more attenuated as conservative state legislatures took Kennedy’s majority opinion in Gonzales to mean open season on abortion. As long as they found for themselves that they were helping women, they thought, they were protected from the Constitution. A bunch of legislatures passed such laws. The Texas law requiring surgical standards and admitting privileges with a hospital, which the court struck down Monday, is just one extreme example of the anti-choice strategy. But Breyer’s opinion and, implicitly, Kennedy’s vote with the majority indicate that Texas did not help its cause by pushing the envelope. Defending its law, Texas’s lawyers contended that more rigorous standards for doctors who perform abortions and for abortion facilities were needed to help women. However, “when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement [requiring admitting privileges] would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case,” Breyer wrote. Needing Kennedy’s vote in the Texas decision, Breyer emphasized that even Gonzales didn’t say the court always had to defer to the legislature on factual matters. Breyer wrote: “Gonzales went on to point out that the ‘Court retains an independent constitutional duty to review factual findings where constitutional rights are at stake.‘” This portion of Breyer’s opinion looks like a clean sweep for Ginsburg and the dissenters in the prior case. But here’s the rub: Breyer’s distinction is a fragile one, given the language and outcome in Gonzales, so he buttressed it by noting that the Texas legislature hadn’t even made any findings in the current law. Uh oh. A bunch more laws like Texas’s law are waiting in the wings in lower courts. And Alabama’s law, for example, includes a long recitation of legislative findings. And that’s where Ginsburg weighed in with one of her signature futuristic concurring opinions. When the news broke that RBG was concurring, the initial reaction was puzzlement. Why would Ginsburg need to write separately from a pro-choice opinion by her liberal colleague Breyer? Looking at her concurrence, however, the explanation is clear. The concurrence is less than two pages. She dismisses Texas’s argument about its interest in protecting “the health of women who experience complications from abortions,” by countering that “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” She recites a laundry list of studies of how safe abortion is, and then she delivers the message: “So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H. B. 2 that ‘do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,’ Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921, cannot survive judicial inspection.” [Emphasis added.] She is writing into law the factual finding that abortion is safe, full stop. When the court turns to the Alabama law, with its “finding” that women need abortion to be restricted, she wants that future court to be able to cite to her opinion that they do not.

The Washington Post, “How Ruth Bader Ginsburg Just Won the Next Abortion Fight.”

The notorious RBG, y’all. Mic drop.

(via inothernews)

She wanted a storm to match her rage.

“I am pleased to see the Supreme Court protect women’s rights and health today. As the brief filed by the Solicitor General makes clear and as the Court affirmed today, these restrictions harm women’s health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a woman’s reproductive freedom. We remain strongly committed to the protection of women’s health, including protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her right to determine her own future. Women’s opportunities are expanded and our nation is stronger when all of our citizens have accessible, affordable health care.” —President Obama on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

5x10 || 6x10

Cersei was all wildfire, especially when thwarted